All Civil Suit

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ...... CORAM : N.M. Jamdar, J. 15 July 2016. P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board dated 15 July 2016, stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS as under :- For condonation of delay A/N Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 64 05.08.2016 65 25.08.2016 For Orders (Restoration) Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 66 to 71 72 to 74 75 to 80 81 to 84 25.08.2016 26.08.2016 29.08.2016 30.08.2016 For restoration (admitted) Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 85 to 86 30.08.2016 87 to 89 31.08.2016 For Orders (Early Hearing Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 90 & 91 31.08.2016 92 to 94 01.09.2016 For Orders Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 98 01.09.2016 99 05.08.2016 100,101 01.09.2016 102 22.03.2017 103 01.09.2016 104 & 105 05.08.2016 106 to 109 02.09.2016 110 06.09.2016 A.O. for Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 111 19.09.2016 M.C.A. fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 112 18.10.2016 112 10.10.2010 M.C.A. Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 117 to 122 23.03.2017 123 to 127 24.03.2017 For Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 128 to 131 02.08.2016 132 to 135 03.08.2016 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (N.M. Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Chavan ....Applicant V/s. 1. Smt. Suvarna Sudhakar Pawaskar and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Devendra Pawar i/by. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents. Coram :- N.M. Jamdar, J. Date :- 21 April 2017. P.C. :- The Second Appeal was dismissed in view of the order passed on 13th October, 2015 directing the Applicant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-. Till date, the costs are not paid and restoration of the Second Appeal is sought. The restoration, will have to be on the payment of additional costs. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Applicant paying costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. (N.M. Jamdar, J)

Order - Status 7: 914-CAS-1334-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2018 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.3953 OF 2017 Shri Sahebamin Mashaksaheb Patil … Applicant Vs Smt. Khajabi Peeransaheb Patil ... Respondent … Mr. J. Yadav I/by Mr. A.A.Joshi for the Applicant. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2019 P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 It is an application for condonation of delay of 4 days occurred in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd November,2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2010. That for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Place this appeal as per the CMIS date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/b. Miss Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No.10. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parities. 2 For the present, the controversy is only about Survey No.119/2/B. I quote paragraph 42 from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which reads thus : " From this purpose entries in 7/12 extract of land survey no.119 at Exh.265 for the year 194344 is also material to consider. This entry shows that land was acquired by military and Mahadu and Vishnu had taken the land for cultivation from military. Anyhow one thing is clear that land gat no.119 was acquired by the government and Mahadu and heirs of Vishnu had received that compensation as per their respective shares. If this is the position then it has to be said that tenancy rights of the family came to an end and land gat no.119 became the property of the government." 3 The observation made in paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 shows that the land had vested in the Government in its military department. The finding is based on the basis of mutation entries but there it is not clear as contended by Mr. Kudale nor it is substantiated by the documentary evidence that the Government had released the land after it had vested in it. The parties are at liberty to place the documents of release, if any, on record, since Second Appeal No.450 of 2014 is admitted for final hearing. However, looking at the finding in paragraph 42 as above, it appears prima facie that neither the appellant nor the respondent would be able to claim any right to go ahead with the construction on the said land or as the case may be without hearing the concerned Government. Hence I make the following order : ORDER i) The appellant to join the concerned Government as a party to the present Civil Application as well as Second Appeal and effect service before the next date. ii) Issue notice to the newly added party in both Second Appeal as well as Civil Application, returnable after vacation for hearing on this application. iii) Till the decision of the application finally the earlier order granting statusquo shall continue in operation. iv) S.O. for 6 weeks. (A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.) waghmare.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the applicants Mr.S.G.Kudle for the respondent No.10. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 26/11/2014 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Liberty granted to the respondents to file their additional AffidavitinReply and serve copy on the other side. 3 Liberty granted to the applicants to file reply to the said affidavit, if they so desire and serve copy on the other side on or before the next date. 4 Stand over for two weeks. 5 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/b Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.10. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 15/12/2014. P.C.: . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the respondent no.10, matter is taken on board for urgent orders. 2 Liberty granted to the applicant to serve unserved respondent by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. 3 Matter to appear on board on 23.12.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders r Jud ge's or ders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.P. Mr. R.P. Raghuvanshi i/b R.A. Ambekar for the i/b R.A. Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the respondent no.10. Ms. Jyotsna Pandi & P.S. Gujar for Union of India. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 23/12/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant no.1 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav expired yesterday i.e. 22.12.2014. Hence, he requires some time to take appropriate steps for bringing her legal heirs on record. 3 On his request, matter adjourned to 19.01.2015. 4 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and Ors. Applicants : V/S : Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. Respondents * * * * * Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, Advocate for respondents no.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for respondents no.26 and 27. * * * * * * Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11th February, 2015. P.C. :- 1). Adjourned for reply of the Government to 25th February, 2015. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply shall be furnished in advance to the appellant and other respondents. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 23: Chittewan 1/5 C.A.1021-14 O.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 R.N. Yadav @ Dhariya .. Applicant (Org.Respondent No.10) In the matter between Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms Rutuja Ambekar, for Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, for Respondent No.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondents No.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No.26 and 27. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th March, 2015 P.C. This is a common order on the above two Civil Applications. Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is taken out by the appellants for interim injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from dealing with or developing one of the suit properties i.e. the land at Survey No.119/2B of Pimple Saudagar, pending the disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is taken out by respondent No.10 for clarification that the adinterim order dated 08th October, 2014 passed on the Civil Application of the appellants is no more in operation in view of the subsequent order dated 12th December, 2014. The other relief sought by respondent No.10 is to direct the appellants to file an undertaking in the form of bank guarantee to the effect that in the event respondent No.10 succeeds in the appeal, the appellants will compensate him for the losses suffered on account of delay in the decision in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appeal was admitted on 06th August, 2014 with observations that prima facie it appears that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to exclude properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from partition and separate possession. These two properties are claimed to have been purchased by respondent No.10 from respondent No.1 by the sale deed dated 09th June, 1983. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the properties had been owned jointly by Vishnu, Laxman and Mahadev. Respondent No.1 is the son of Vishnu. In view of this factual position, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the appellate Court was right in excluding Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from the partition and separate possession ? Whether learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10 waives service of the notice ? It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, some portion of the properties came to be acquired by Government of India. Therefore, by order dated 08th December, 2014, the appellants were directed to amend the Civil Application to implead the concerned parties. Accordingly, amendment was carried out and seven persons were impleaded to the Civil Application. They are (1) Union of India, (2) Director General, Defence Estate, (3) Principal Director, Defence Estate, (4) Defence Estate officer, Southern Command, (5) Commanding Officer, Southern Command, (6) State of Maharashtra and (7) The Collector of Pune. The interim relief in operation during pendency of the suit was direction to respondent No.10 to maintain statusquo in respect of the properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7. This order has been continued with observation that if respondent No.10 is allowed to deal with the properties or carry out the construction, the same would lead to further complication which should be avoided. Mr. Kudgle, the learned advocate for respondent No.10 submits that the order dated 23rd December, 2014 passed this Court, is no longer in operation since the same has not been specifically continued. He also submits that respondent No.10, who had purchased the properties as far back as in the year 1983 is unable to enjoy the properties purchased by him. Considering the nature of the substantial questions of law framed, properties in question need to be preserved in the same condition during pendency of the Second Appeal. Hence, the Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is allowed and Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 7: cas1137.11&1191.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICTION NO.1137 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2011 Bajaran Tatyaba Kalokhe : Applicant. Versus Kisan Shankar Darwatkar and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Rajesh B Parab for the Applicant Mr. S V Pitre with Mr.Mahesh Subramaniam for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1191 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.487 OF 2011 Kisan Shankar Darwatkar and ors. : Applicants Versus Bajrang Tatyaba Kalokhe : Respondent. Mr. S V Pitre with Mr. Mahesh Subramaniam for the Applicants. Mr. Rajesh B Parab for the Respondent. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th April 2012 P.C. 1 The above Civil Applications, by each of the Applicants/Appellants abovenamed have been filed for staying the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 22/3/2011 in the above mentioned Appeals. It is required to be noted that in so far as aspect of possession is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded a finding in favour of the Appellant in Second Appeal No.468 of 2011 who is the original Plaintiff. In the light of the said finding in my view it would be just and proper to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the said 15 Ares of land which is the suit property, pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Second Appeals. By directing as aforesaid, the above Civil Applications are disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Second Appeal No.534 Of 2012. Alongwith Civil Application No.1316 Of 2012. Sudhir Mahadev Yashvantrao :: Appellant. ---------------------------- ---- ------------ Versus Mandakini Dhondu Chalke (Since dead, through LR's.) & Ors. :: Respondents. Appearance => Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM => R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE => 27th AUGUST, 2013. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Gorwadkar, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No.38 Of 2007 has entertained the Appeal preferred by the present appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 17th July, 2007 passed in Reg.Civil Suit No.219 Of 2001 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri. The learned District Judge by his Judgment and Decree dated 20th February, 2012 permitted the present appellant to enjoy the right more particularly as set out in the operative part of the order. In my view, this protects the interest of the present appellant, adequately. (2) In view of the aforesaid discussion, points raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted to admit the Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Application No.1316/2012 is dismissed. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Order - Status 9: -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Ms Deepali Kali h/f Mr.P.N.Joshi for the Applicant Mr.Arun Palekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 4,2008. P.C.: Heard Advocates for the parties. Second Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. The decree for possession passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court was stayed during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Court. In this view of the matter, ad-interim order granted on 13th October 2005 deserves to be continued as interim order till the final disposal of the Appeal. Hence, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that ad-interim order dated 13th October 2005 will continue to operate as interim order till the final disposal of the Appeal. JUDGE